A  = 
Al 

0  I 

0 ! 
0  1 

5  ^ 

8 

5 

8 

0 

0 


CODMAN 

Are  the  Interests  of  a  Few 
Ship-Builders  More  to  be  Considered 
than- the  Interests  of  Commerce? 


HE 

746 

C67 


ARE  THE  TNTEHE8TS  OF  A  FEW 


SHIP-BUILDERS 


MOKK.  TO   UK  L'(iNSII)KUKL)  THAN 


The  Interests  of  Commerce  ? 


Delivered  before  the  Special  Coinmittee  of  the  House  oj  Represent- 
<dives  on  Navigation  Intei-ests,  Hon.  John  Lynch,  Chairman, 

Washiiigrtoii,   IWLai-cli   lO,   IST'O, 


JOHN   CODMAN, 


WASHINGTON,  T).  C. 

Gibson     Brothers,     Printers 

1870. 


Hon.  John  LyNCHj  Chairman,  ^c,  ^c: 

Dear  Sir — As  much  of  your  time  has  ?jeen  occupied  in  listen- 
ing to  men  who  are  personally  interested  in  the  schemes  they 
propose,  am  I  presumptuous  in  asking  your  attention  for  less 
than  fifteen  minutes  to  what  I  have  to  say  in  opposition  to  some 
of  them? 

Not  more  than  two  or  three  minutes  will  be  taken  up  in  re- 
futing the  slander  that  I  am  a  foreign  agent.  I  think  that  in- 
dulgence may  be  claimed. 

You  will  allow  me  to  say,  with  that  respect  which  has  been 
manifested  in  all  I  have  said  or  written  to  you,  that,  speaking 
for  a  large  class  of  our  fellow-citizens  who  ask  the  privilege  of 
reviving  their  commercial  interests,  my  request  is  entitled  to  be 
granted  by  your  committee. 

I  am,  very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  CODMAN. 
Arlington  Hotel,  March  18,  1870. 


HonsE  OF  Representatives,  March  18,  1870. 
Dear  Sir — Your  note  is  at  hand.     The  committee  meet  to- 
morrow (Saturday)  to  hear  parties  in  favor  of  a  steam-ship  line. 
You  can  be  heard  at  the  same  session  if  you  so  desire. 

Yours,  truly, 

JOHN  LYNCH, 

Chairman. 
Captain  John  Codman, 

Arlington  Hotel. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Arcinive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/areinterestsoffeOOcodm 


ADDRESS. 


Gentlemen  :  I  should  not  have  presumed  to  present  a 
review  of  the  second  pamphlet  inscribed  to  you  by  the 
Ship-builders'  Association  of  New  York  but  from  a  motive 
of  self-respect.  At  the  same  time  I  am  glad  that  the 
opportunity  is  afforded  of  again  attracting  your  attention 
to  a  subject  of  higher  importance. 

'•'A  communication,  &c.,  &c.,  &c.,  Being  a  Reply  to  a 
Second  Letter  to  the  Committee  by  Captain  John  Codman, 
formerly  of  Boston,  Massachusetts,  noiv  of  Dumbarton, 
Scotland,  urging  the  repeal  of  the  present  Navigation 
Laws,  and  favoring  the  admission  of  Foreign-built  Ves- 
sels to  the  Full  Privilege  of  the  American  Flag." 

The  words  which  I  have  emphasized  serve  for  the  text 
of  their  discourse.  AVhen  personalities,  especially  such 
as  those  which  are  known  by  the  writers  to  be  untrue 
in  their  application,  are  resorted  to  in  the  place  of  argu- 
ments, the  extent  of  their  influence  need  not  be  greatly 
feared.  In  their  first  production,  a  mere  insinuation 
was  made  of  what  is  now  the  staple  of  the  whole  ma- 
terial. The  intention  is  not  to  overthrow  my  arguments 
or  to  controvert  my  statistics,  but  to  convince  you  that  I 
am  a  traitor  to  my  country  because  I  prefer  to  advocate 
the  interests  of  the  whole  people,,  even  if  seemingly  op- 
posing those  of  a  few^  and,  further,  that  I  am  an  agent 
and  in  the  paid  service  of  Clyde  ship-builders. 

I  have  already  denied  the  accusation,  expressing  the 
hope  that  it  was  incautiously  made,  and  had  thought 
that  denial  would  have  been  sufficient — that  it  would  have 
saved  the  necessity  of  calling  by  its  proper  name  the 
assertion  which  now  spreads  itself  over  twenty  pages. 


Will  you  take  for  what  it  is  worth,  against  a  calumny 
which  you  may  estimate  at  its  proper  value  from  its 
motive,  my  word  that  there  is  not  the  slightest  founda- 
tion for  such  a  reproach  ?  I  have  never  received  any  money 
or  the  promise  of  any  money,  directly  or  indirectly,  from 
tlie  ship-builders  upon  the  Clyde,  or  from  any  source  what- 
ever, in  connection  with  this  object.  I  am  not  particularly 
in  want  of  money. 

Certain  members  of  the  ''New  York  Association" 
have  been  occupying  themselves  with  my  domestic  af- 
fairs, and  retailing  their  interest  in  them  to  the  Naviga- 
tion Committee  and  at  the  Treasury  Department.  What- 
ever may  have  been  the  enormity  of  my  own  crime  in 
spending  two  or  three  months  in  Scotland  without  their 
permission,  I  hope  that  they  will  not  too  harshly  judge  an 
innocent  family  of  ladies,  who  had  reasons,  satisfactory  at 
least  to  them,  and  to  me,  for  remaining  a  short  time  longer 
in  Edinburgh.  They  have  acted  in  accordance  with  their 
own  volition  since  I  left  them.  They  may  now  be  in 
Liverpool,  or  on  their  homeward  passage.  I  could  wish 
that  they  might  come  home  under  their  own  flag  ;  but  as 
this  would  not  be  in  accordance  with  the  enlightened  policy 
which  puts  their  passage  money  into  the  pockets  of  British 
ship-owners,  they  have  no  choice  beyond  that  of  contrib- 
ting  to  British  profits  or  remaining  on  British  soil.  I  am 
afraid,  if  they  wait  till  the  "  New  York  Association"  build 
an  Atlantic  steamer,  that  my  chance  of  seeing  them  will 
be  remote. 

As  has  been  said  before,  I  began,  many  years  ago,  to 
discern  the  necessity  of  our  purchasing  iron  ships  abroad  if 
we  wished  to  retain  our  commerce ;  and  now,  finding  the 
country  has  at  last  discovered  that  its  commerce  is  lost, 
I  am  here  to  urge  upon  you  the  only  way  to  regain  it — by 
folloioing  the  example  of  all  other  nations  who  purchase 
their  ships  in  the  cheapest  markets.  With  this  view,  I 
have  already  published  the  pamphlets  addressed  to  you. 


6 

The  first  was  undertaken  at  the  request  of  the  New 
York  Board  of  Underwriters,  and  they  paid  the  printer's 
bill.  The  second  was  published  at  my  own  expense,  but 
a  New  York  ship-owner  volunteered  to  pay  for  that.  As 
the  underwriters  and  ship-owners  are  all  interested  in 
having  ships  to  sail  from  our  ports  under  our  own  flag,  I 
consider  that  they  have  their  value  received.  That  is 
the  precise  extent  of  the  pecuniary  aid  that  has  been 
afforded,  and  I  am  glad  that  I  have  accepted  that  much, 
as  it  subtracts  from  the  odium  of  a  disinterestedness  hard 
to  explain  in  Washington. 

I  am  again  indebted  to  my  reviewers  for  copious  ex- 
tracts from  my  letters,  which  add  to  their  publicity.  As 
this  communication  will  be  very  short,  I  hope  they  may 
in  their  next  brochure  be  willing  to  quote  it  entire.  I 
would  prefer  that  there  should  be  no  wilful  omissions 
of  words  calculated  to  give  false  impressions,  and  that 
there  should  be  no  surreptitious  use  of  uncorrected  proof- 
sheets.  When  I  spoke  of  the  "Alabama,"  I  called  her 
an  ^^ infamous  pirate."  The  adjective  is  omitted  in  the 
largely  paraded  quotation,  in  order  to  convey  the  idea 
that  I  approved  of  her  career.  A  candid  reader  will 
readily  understand  my  meaning  to  be,  that  the  owners  of 
the  ships  destroyed  by  her  had  no  occasion  generally  for 
regret,  as  they  were  mostly  covered  by  insurance.  The 
real  sufferers  were  those  who,  like  myself,  continued 
through  the  war  to  sail  their  ships  under  the  American 
flag,  paying  extra  premiums  for  perseverance  in  a  course 
which  we  considered  patriotic. 

After  quoting  the  introduction  to  my  second  letter — 

"Permit  me  to  say  in  the  outset,  that  I  advocate  the 
purchase  of  sliips  wherever  they  can  be  bought  most  cheaply^ 
under  such  restrictions  as  shall  protect  the  interest  of  Amer- 
icans luho  build  ships  for  the  coasting  trade" — 

I  am  accused  of  inconsistency  because  I  closed  the  former 
one  with  this  sentence  : 


*'I  urge  you  and  your  committee,  in  your  forthcoming 
report,  to  advocate  the  total  repeal  of  the  old  law." 

This  remark  follows  : 

"  The  reasons  for  this  modification  in  his  demands  are 
not  given  by  the  gentleman  who  so  ably  represents  in  this 
country  the  interests  of  foreign  ship-builders." 

If  the  writer  had  been  disposed  to  fairness^  he  would 
have  seen  that  "the  reason  for  this  modification"  might 
be  attributed  to  a  spirit  of  compromise  with  ship-builders — 
such  as  it  does  not  occur  to  him  he  might  charitably 
exercise  toward  ship-owners. 

As  I  am  far  from  being  ashamed  of  it,  I  will  rejseat  for 
his  benefit  and  for  your  consideration : 

"I  am  sure  that  if  we  had  liberty  to  purchase  foreign  ves- 
sels for  our  coasting  trade,  lakes  and  rivers,  as  well  as  for 
the  ocean,  the  interests  of  the  whole  country  would  be 
best  served  ;  and  if  war  should  come  upon  us,  we  should 
find  ourselves  better  prepared  with  ships  than  we  shall  be 
by  any  'half-way  measures'  you  may  choose  to  adopt  in 
order  to  conciliate  these  unreasonable  complainants. 

' '  But  as  the  coasting  trade  must,  at  all  events,  be  as  little 
interfered  with  as  i^ossible,  it  might  at  first  sight  appear 
to  be  a  fair  compromise  if  foreign  vessels  should  be 
admitted  to  our  flag  for  purposes  of  foreign  commerce 
only.  Still,  no  merchant  would  care  to  own  a  shijD,  even 
if  intended  generally  for  foreign  service,  if  he  could  not 
use  her  on  the  coast,  when  occasion  required. 

' '  In  the  first  place,  let  us  be  fair  to  the  builders  of  wooden 
vessels — to  those  gentlemen  who  still  maintain  that  wood 
is  preferable  to  iron.  Let  them  continue  to  enjoy  the 
monopoly  of  such  ships,  and  let  every  article  that  enters 
into  their  construction  be  imported  duty  free  ;  it  loould 
cost  the  country  nothing.  In  other  respects  let  the  legisla- 
tion apply  exclusively  to  iron  and  composite  ships;  and  to 
the  materials  that  enter  into  their  construction. 


' '  Our  coasters  are  generally  vessels  of  under  one  thousand 
tons.  I  think  that,  although  each  class  of  persons  inter- 
ested would  probably  like  to  be  favored  to  the  exclusion  of 
all  others,  the  just-minded  men  among  them,  in  view  of 
the  pressing  wants  of  the  whole  country,  might  be  satis- 
fied with  such  propositions  as  these  : 

"  1,  All  materials  entering  into  the  construction  and 
outfits  of  ships  of  any  kind  to  be  admitted  duty 
free. 

"  2.  Lwi  and  composite  ships  of  over  fifteen  Jamdred  tons, 
built  abroad,  to  be  admitted  to  the  flag,  and  to 
all  the  privileges  of  American-built  ships,  duty 
free. 

"  3.  Ships'  stores  to  be  taken  out  of  bond  duty  free. 

"  4.  Subsidies,  if  any,  to  be  granted  to  ships  built 
within  the  limits  of  the  United  States.'' 

I  most  respectfully  suggest  the  adojition  of  measures 
similar  to  these,  and  shall  urge  them  until  reasons  for 
further  modification  are  more  apparent  than  at  present. 
They  afford  a  sufficient  argument  to  refute  the  repeated 
charge  of  intention  to  destroy  American  industry.  The 
mechanics  who  will  still  be  emjjloyed  in  building  more 
iron  vessels  than  they  ever  built  before  for  the  coasting 
trade  will  be  always  at  hand  to  build  larger  vessels  in  case 
of  war,  to  be  added  to  those  we  can  only  obtain  for  ocean 
commerce  by  purchasing  them. 

"If  Americans  are  the  only  people  on  the  earth  not 
allowed  to  purchase  ships  wherever  they  please,  they  also 
are  the  only  people  that  have  such  unbounded  facilities  for 
building  them." 

If  we  take  into  account  the  iron  tonnage  built  in  Eng- 
land as  compared  with  that  built  here,  even  before  the  war, 
this  assertion  seems  rather  wild.  If  other  countries  are 
referred   to,  it  may  be  remarked  that  iron  ships  can  be 


8 

built  in  Germany  and  France  cheaper  than  here — that 
iron  and  coal,  and  especially  labor,  is  cheaper  in  those 
countries  than  in  our  own  ;  and  yet  they  resort  to  Scotland 
for  the  purchase  of  most  of  their  ships.  Further,  it  can 
be  said  that,  singular  as  it  may  appear,  domestic  industry 
is  stimulated  among  those  peoples  by  the  admission  of  for- 
eign-built ships. 

"  On  the  other  hand,  had  the  policy  he  is  so  strenuously 
advocating  been  adopted  by  the  Grovernment,  what  would 
have  been  our  condition  at  the  commencement  of  the  war, 
with  no  ship-yards,  no  machine-shops,  no  mechanics? 
Would  the  builders  on  the  Clyde  have  furnished  us  mon- 
itors ?  Would  they  have  launched,  one  day,  a  vessel  to 
run  our  blockade,  and  the  next  an  iron-clad  to  protect  our 
seaboard  ?  Would  the  pompous  ship-building  member  of 
Parliament,  who,  in  the  presence  of  that  august  body, 
declared  it  to  be  the  glory  of  his  life  that  he  had  built  the 
'^  Alabama,'  have  furnished  war  vessels  to  protect  our 
commerce?  Nay,  verily  !  And  we  trust  the  day  is  far, 
very  far,  distant  when  this  country  will  have  to  depend 
on  Great  Britain,  or  any  other  nation,  for  the  supply  of 
ships  for  the  commerce  of  her  merchants,  the  protection  of 
her  property,  or  the  maintenance  of  the  glory  of  her  un- 
sullied flag." 

We  should  have  had  more  ship-yards,  more  machine- 
shops  and  more  mechanics  than  now.  We  should  have  been 
able  to  build  our  monitors  at  home,  with  greater  facilities 
than  we  have  had  heretofore.  We  should  not  require 
them  from  the  Clyde.  If  we  did, ' '  would  the  builders  on  the 
Clyde  have  furnished  us  monitors?"  Undoubtedly  they 
would  furnish  them  for  us  and  for  our  enemies,  as  we  have 
been  furnishing  gunboats  for  the  Spaniards  and  privateers 
for  the  Cubans  ;  as  in  the  Crimean  war  we  furnished  ships 
for  the  English  and  French  on  the  one  side  and  for  the  Rus- 
sians on  the  other.  Ship-huilding  is  a  trade,  and  neutrality 
is  an  opportunity .  No  people  understand  this  better  than 
Yankees  and  Scotsmen.    I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the 


"  pompous  ship-building  member  of  Parliament"  would 
have  been  pleased  to  build  us  another  vessel  to  catch  his 
"Alabama."  Yes  ;  ship-building  is  a  business  for  making 
money.  So  is  ship-sailing.  Spread  eagleism  of  our  country 
is  not  argument,  and  "  the  maintenance  of  the  glory  of  her 
unsullied  flag"  requires  a  peak  whereon  to  hoist  it. 

The  present  condition  of  the  Pacific  Mail  Steamship 
Company  does  not  afford  a  favorable  illustration  of  the 
superiority  of  American  wooden  side-wheel  steam-ships 
over  foreign-built  iron  screws. 

Personal  losses,  attributable  to  false  representations 
made  by  the  officers  of  the  company,  although  serviceable 
reminders  of  the  results  of  misplaced  confidence,  do  not 
weaken  the  assertion,  corroborated  by  stock  reports,  that 
the  Pacific  Mail  Steamship  Company  is  a  failure. 

Their  coastwise  steamers  are  losing  money,  and  the  China 
steamers  are  making  none.  Economical  iron  screws  in 
both  cases  would  yield  profits.  To-day  there  is  a  company 
of  Americans  in  San  Francisco  waiting  your  action  in 
order  to  contract  abroad  for  the  building  of  steamers  that 
will  require  no  subsidy^  will  bring  freight  and  passengers 
at  a  cheaper  ^rate,  and  will  pay  to  their  owners  handsome 
dividends.  On  the  other  hand,  Englishmen,  too,  are 
awaiting  your  action,  in  the  hope  that  you  will  not  give  us 
free  s/ijps,  and  then  they  will  put  on  a  line  of  steamers 
between  California  and  China  under  their  own  flag.  They 
will  thank  you  for  throwing  into  their  hands  the  com- 
merce of  the  Pacific  as  we  have  freely  yielded  to  them  that 
of  the  Atlantic.  And  yet  I  am  constantly  upbraided  with 
being  in  the  interest  of  foreigners,  when  trying  to  induce 
you,  by  every  argument  in  my  power,  to  protect  us — not 
as  ship-builders,  but  as  a  commercial  people — against  the 
English  monopoly  of  the  sea. 

The  references  to  the  Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Kavy  do  not 
call  for  any  criticisms.  I  have  a  high  respect  for  that 
gentleman,  and  doubt  not  that  he  can  take  care  of  his  own 


10 

department  without  assistance  from  the  reviewer  or  from 
me.  Ships  of  war  and  merchantmen  are  constructed  for 
different  purposes.  Naval  officers  and  merchants  are  the 
best  judges  of  their  respective  requirements.  The  latter, 
without  reference  to  the  former,  merely  ask  for  the  privi- 
lege of  an  equal  competition  with  the  ship-owners  of 
other  nations.  This  they  can  only  have  by  enjoying  the  lib- 
erty of  purchasing  in  the  cheapest  markets,  such  ships  as 
are  adapted  to  their  purposes. 

''Kit  (subsidy)  has  served  its  purpose  in  England,  and 
no  steam-ship  companies  have  outgrown  it,  we  see  no  good 
reasons  why  it  will  not  permanently  benefit  us  in  our  infan- 
tile struggles  toward  commercial  manhood." 

It  being  admitted  that  the  unsubsidized  ships  of 
England  are  now  able  to  compete  with  those  that  are 
subsidized,  and  whose  cost  is  the  same,  will  they  not 
be  able  to  compete  with  American  subsidized  ships 
that  cost  seventy  per  cent,  more?  Is  it  to  be  sup- 
posed that  unsubsidized  foreign  ships  will  go  back  to 
"infantile  struggles"  in  order  to  give  us  a  fair  chance? 
No  ;  they  are  where  they  are,  solely  on  account  of  the  stolid 
indifference  to  our  own  interests,  which  national  pride  has 
so  fostered  that  Englishmen,  and  even  Germans,  are  so 
far  ahead  of  us  in  practical  experience  that  we  need  to 
have  every  impediment  removed  that  hinders  an  attempt 
to  obtain  our  share  of  the  ocean. 

At  any  rate,  this  is  clear  so  far  as  the  established  traffic 
between  the  United  States  and  England  is  concerned. 
That  trade  is  already  built  up,  and  it  is  too  late  to  lay  a 
new  foundation. 

I  am  aware  tluit  a  company  of  gentlemen  have  a  scheme 
really  magnificent,  if  feasible,  of  establishing  a  Mediter- 
ranean line,  which  passing  through  the  Suez  canal,  is  to 
bring  home  the  produce  of  China  to  us  in  sixty  days.  If 
a  little  judicious  nursing  will  aid  its  "  infantile  struggles" 


11 

to  attain  "commercial  manhood,"  the  force  of  the  argu- 
ment for  a  novel  enterprise  like  this  is  worthy  of  consid- 
eration. I  hope  that  this  admission  will  not  renew  the 
charge  of  inconsistency  from  those  who  can  appreciate  no 
consistency  except  that  pertaining  to  qhstinacy. 

Generally,  aid  is  not  required  for  individuals  or  com- 
panies. We  &^'k  freedom  for  all,  and  then,  far  as  we  are 
behind  in  the  race,  far  as  our  own  laws  have  pushed  us 
behind,  we  may  hope  to  regain  our  place  by  energy  and 
perseverance. 

No  one  knows  better  than  the  ship-builders  themselves 
that  the  bounty  they  ask  will  not  enable  them  to  put  one 
transatlantic  steamer  afloat.  It  will  authorize  them  to  take 
from  the  pockets  of  the  people  and  appropriate  to  their  own 
gain  all  the  drawback  your  bill  allows  them  for  the  build- 
ing of  coasting,  lake,  river  and  canal  craft. 

"Where  is  the  interference  of  England  with  our  coast, 
our  inland  waters,  or  the  canals  ? 

Are  not  all  the  vessels  on  these  built  by  our  own  people 
now,  and  will  they  not  continue  to  be  built  by  them? 
What  need,  then,  of  the  ''protection"  of  a  draw^back? 

And  yet  this  is  the  real  2orize  for  which  the  ship-builders 
are  striving. 

Transatlantic  steamers  would  be  generally  vessels  of 
3,000  tons.  Suppose  you  amend  your  bill  by  allowing  the 
proposed  drawback  only  on  vessels  of  over  2,000  tons, 
would  they  be  satisfied  with  that?  Indeed,  they  would 
not ! 

Gentlemen,  do  not  trifle  any  longer  with  the  interests 
of  commerce.  If  the  ship-builders  are  to  be  our  masters, 
give  them  such  a  bounty  that  they  can  afi'ord  to  be  gen- 
erous. Give  them  one  hundred  dollars  per  ton,  that  they 
may  sell  us  ships  as  cheap  as  we  can  buy  them  elsewhere. 
Otherwise,  give  us  the  liberty  which  the  potentates  of 
Europe  are  too  wise  to  deny  to  their  subjects.  Whatever 
you  do,  do  it  now,  and  do  it  so  that  no  more  will  be  re- 


12 

quired  to  be  done  in  the  future.  In  the  words  of  the  eloquent 
colored  Senator  from  Mississippi:  "  Delay  is  perilous  at 
best ;  for  it  is  as  true  in  legislation  as  in  physic,  that  the 
longer  we  procrastinate  to  apply  the  proper  remedies  the 
more  chronic  becomes  the  malady  that  we  seek  to  heal. 

'■'  He's  a  bad  surgeon  that  for  pity  spares 
The  part  corrupted,  till  the  gangrene  spread 
And  all  the  body  perish." 

Waste  no  time  in  the  trial  of  palliatives. 

I  can  freely  forgive  the  reviewer  all  his  misrepresenta- 
tions of  my  motives,  as  he  has  been  so  hard  driven  for 
other  matter,  especially  as  at  the  close  of  his  communica- 
tion he  virtually  admits  the  force  of  my  argument : 

"  We  will  pass  over  the  gentleman's  formidable  array 
of  figures,  as  well  as  the  very  practical  illustration  of 
the  difference  in  the  cost  of  a  good  suit  of  clothes  bought 
in  London  and  a  suit  made  in  this  country,  because  the 
analysis  of  both  simply  prove  the  same  thing,  which  is, 
that  labor  is  more  expensive  in  this  country  than  in  Eng- 
land— '  only  this  and  nothing  more.'  It  is  but  just  to  the 
shipwright  and  tailor  to  mention  in  this  connection  that 
they  are  not  the  only  American  mechanics  whose  pay  is 
higher  than  their  brother  Englishmen. 

"We  admit  labor  here  is  higher,  and  while  we  can  give 
'many  reasons  for  the  difterence  will  confine  ourselves  to  a 
short  paragraph  taken  from  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  to  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  on  the  de- 
cline of  American  shipping : 

"  'The  difference  in  the  cost  of  the  same  product  of 
labor  in  different  countries  is  due  mainly  to  differences  of 
social  and  political  institutions,  giving  rise  to  differences 
in  the  remuneration  of  labor.' 

Precisely  so,  and  therefore  it  Avas  not  considered  advisa- 
ble to  attack  the  "formidable  array  of  figures." 

These  figures  are  my  arguments.  They  are  much 
stronger  and  should  be  more  effectual  than  personalities 
and  bombast. 


13 

I  know  that  there  are  men  in  Congress  who  will  not 
refuse  to  examine  them.  They  scarcely  touch  upon  the 
relative  prices  of  material. 

My  whole  argument  is  based  upon  this  admission  of  the 
ship-builders. 

Some  of  them  are  present.  Among  them  is  a  gentle- 
man who  stands  at  the  head  of  his  profession  ;  another  is 
my  reviewer.  Beyond  a  due  appreciation  of  the  service 
he  is  rendering  our  cause  by  confining  his  assaults  to  one 
of  its  advocates,  I  have  a  high  personal  regard  for  him. 

Now,  I  ask  them  if  the  following  statements  are  not 
undeniable. 

Inasmuch  as  Jive-eighths  of  the  cost  of  a  steam-ship  and 
her  machinery  in  this  country  is  labor — inasmuch  as  labor 
here  is  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  per  cent,  more  than  in 
Scotland — inasmuch  as  the  interest  on  capital  here  is 
double — inasmuch  as  the  long  continued  experience  and 
adaptation  of  labor  saving,  forced  upon  foreign  ship-builders 
by  fierce  competition  among  themselves,  is  at  least  a  balance 
against  our  fancied  superior  skill ;  therefore,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  material,  ivhich  is  immense 
and  yet  comparatively  trifling,  it  is  absolutely  impossible 
for  us  to  compete  on  any  terms  thctt  can  be  afforded  by 
your  proposed  drawback,  so  that  ive  may  participate  in 
international  commerce. 

We  shall  still  retain  our  coasting  trade,  and  our  river, 
lake  and  canal  trade,  for  none  of  which  a  bounty  is  neces- 
sary ;  but  if  we  wish  for  steamers  upon  the  ocean,  which 
is  free  to  the  world,  ive  must  buy  them,  or  continue  to  yield 
our  legitimate  p>rofits  to  foreigners,  or  you  must  give  our 
mechanics  a  hundred  dollars  per  ton  to  build  large  steam- 
ships. 

They  will  tell  you  they  do  not  require  so  much.     They 

will  tell  you  so  because  they  know  it  cannot  be  obtained. 

So  they  have  reduced  the  controversy  to  a  question 

between  '^  spread  eagle"  on  the  one  side  and  practical 

common  sense  on  the  other. 


14 

The  first  is  the  final  resort  of  a  few  dozen  ship-huilders 
to  gain  a  bounty,  which  would  be  of  service  only  to 
themselves,  while  it  would  be  a  needless  extortion  from  the 
country.  The  last  is  the  plea  of  forty  millions  of  people, 
whose  interests  would  be  directly  or  indirectly  affected  by 
the  revival  of  commerce. 

Which  is  selfish  and  which  is  patriotic  ? 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


APRS  1984 


Series  9482 


Bl|l|lflll?r,^,^I?,n..yBRARy,.r:,nT. 


wumin 


AA    000  585  800 


""lllilllnii 
6 


^no^oA 


NEWARK,  N  J.  •  WiaiAMSPORT,  Tk. 
WS  ANCatS,  CAIIF. 
BRANTf  ORO,  OUT. 
MADE  IN  U.S.*. 


